Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/75/2015

Sushil Kumar S/o Jai Paul - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDE UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vijay Kamboj

10 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                            Complaint No. 75 of 2015

                                                                            Date of institution: 05.03.2015

                                                                            Date of decision: 10.01.2017.

1^st Complaint

Sushil Kumar aged about 48 years son of Sh. Jai Paul, resident of village Fatehgarh, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                           

……Complainant.

                                                     Versus

1.SDE UHBVN, Sub Urban, Sub Division, Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

2. The Executive Engineer (OP) Division, UHBVN, Yamuna Nagar.

3.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula, through its     

   Managing Director.

                                                                                            ……Respondents  

Present: Sh. V.K.Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Dharamvir Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

                               

2.  

                                                                               Complaint No. 224 of 2015.

                                                                               Date of institution: 08.07.2015.

                                                                               Date of decision: 10.01.2017.

Sushil Kumar aged about 48 years son of Sh. Jai Paul, resident of village Fatehgarh, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                           

………Complainant.

                                                     Versus

1.SDE UHBVN, Sub Urban, Sub Division, Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

2. The Executive Engineer (OP) Division, UHBVN, Yamuna Nagar.

3.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula, through its     

   Managing Director.

                                                                                           ……Respondents             

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. V.K.Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Jai Pal Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

               

The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986,

 

ORDER

 

1                         We are deciding two (2) complaints bearing CC No. 75/2015 filed on 05.03.2015 titled as Sushil Kumar vs. SDE UHBVN etc. and CC No. 224 of 2015 filed on 08.07.2015 titled as Sushil Kumar Versus SDE, UHBVN etc. vide this common judgment, filed by the same complainant against the same parties as the facts and law points involved in both the complaints are the same,

2                          Brief facts, as alleged, in both the complaints are as under:  

3                      Brief facts of the present complaints are that complainant is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account No. Y32JU111072H and paying the electricity bills regularly. However, the respondents (hereinafter respondents will be referred as Ops Nigam) has issued a bill bearing No. 739 dated 07.02.2015 (Annexure C-1) in which an amount of Rs. 16314/- have been debited through average adjustment/sundry charges/allowances. It is pertinent to mention here that in the second complaint bearing No. 224 filed on 08.07.2015 a sum of Rs. 50972/- have been debited through the average adjustment/sundry charges/ allowances vide bill No. 734 issued on 09.06.2015. The complainant has further submitted that the alleged amounts i.e. Rs. 16314/- in Bill No. 739 issued on 07.02.2015 subject matter of complaint bearing No. 75 of 2015 and Rs. 50972/- in bill bearing No. 734 issued on 09.06.2015 subject matter of CC No. 224 dated 08.07.2015 is totally wrong, illegal and thus cannot be legally recovered from the complainant. No notice has ever been served by the OPs regarding debiting the alleged amount. The complainant has made so many requests to the Op No.1 to withdraw the said illegal amount but the OPs flatly refused to do so. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to withdraw the alleged amount of Rs. 16314/- subject matter of complaint No. 75 of 2015 and Rs. 50972/- subject matter of complaint No. 224 of 2015 and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

4.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has no cause of action against the OPs; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and on merit it has been submitted that an amount of Rs. 66314/- have been debited in the account of the complainant as the real brother of the complainant namely Balvinder Singh was consumer of the OPs Nigam vide electricity connection bearing account No. JU-11-1301 which was PDCO due to non payment of bill amount, so, the amount of Rs. 66314/- ( Rs. 16314/- subject matter of complaint No. 75/2015 and Rs. 50,000/- plus 972/- surcharge subject matter of complaint No. 224 of 2015) has been transferred in the account of complainant bearing No. JU-11-1072. It has been further mentioned that the alleged amount has been transferred in the account of the complainant rightly as his real brother Balvinder Singh was residing in the same premises and they were residing together as a joint family and rest contents of the complaint were denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of ration card as Annexure C-1/C-6, Photo copy of electricity bill as Annexure C-2 and C-3 in complaint No. 75 of 2015 and C-1 to C-5 in complaint No. 224 of 2015 as well as copy of order dated 09.03.2015 passed by this Forum as Annexure C7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Munish Sharma, SDO as Annexure RW/A and documents Annexure R-1 and R-2 in complaint No. 75 of 2015 and affidavit of Sh. Gurdeep Kumar ALM as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Photo copy of account register as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of PDCO dated 28.07.2011 of Balvinder Singh as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of ledger account of complainant Sushil Kumar as Annexure R-3 and Photo copy of authority letter as Annexure R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                     It is not disputed that the complainant is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account No. JU-11-1072 and paying the bills regularly to the OPs Nigam. The only version of the complainant is that an amount of Rs.16314/- in Bill No. 739 dated 07.02.2015 (Annexure C-2) in complaint No. 75 of 2015 and an amount of Rs. 50972/- in bill No. 734 dated 09.06.2015 (Annexure C-5) in complaint No. 224 of 2015 have been wrongly and illegally debited in his account and the same are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that it is admitted case of the OPs that the alleged amount of Rs. 16314/- and Rs. 50972/- i.e. total amount of Rs. 66314/- with surcharge of Rs. 972/- was not relating to the complainant but the same has been transferred in his account being defaulting amount of his brother  Balvinder Singh. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that no such evidence has been placed on file by the OPs Nigam that the complainant as well as his brother were residing in the same premises and using the electricity jointly. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards the photo copy of ration card of the complainant Annexure C-1 and argued that complainant alongwith his family is living separately and paying his electricity bills regularly to the OPs Nigam and prayed for quashing the aforesaid amount of Rs. 66314/- alongwith surcharge etc. from the account of the complainant.

9.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs Sh. Dharamvir Singh Advocate in complaint No. 75 of 2015 and Sh. Jaipal Singh Advocate in complaint No. 224 of 2015 argued at length that the OPs Nigam has rightly transferred the defaulting amount of Rs. 66314/- vide bill No. 734 and 739 in the account of the complainant as the complainant and his brother Balvinder Singh were residing in the same premises and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.                   After hearing both the parties at length, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as it is admitted case of the OPs that an amount of Rs. 66314/- was due against one Balvinder Singh son of Sh. Jai Pal Singh who is real brother of the complainant and was having separate electricity connection bearing account No. JU-11-1301 which was disconnected vide PDCO No.41/RS-3 dated 28.07.2011 in the year 2011 due to non-payment of electricity bills. Further, it is also not disputed that the said defaulting amount of Rs. 66314/- ( Rs. 16314/- subject matter of the complaint No. 75 of 2015 and Rs.50,000/- + Rs.972/- surcharge subject matter of complaint No. 224 of 2015) has been transferred in the account of the complainant in the month of February 2015 and June 2015 which is duly evident from the copy of bills bearing No. 739 dated 07.02.2015 Annexure C-2 and Bill bearing No. 734 dated 09.06.2015 (Annexure C-5). The arguments advanced by the counsels for the OPs that the said defaulting amount has been rightly transferred in the account of the complainant being same premises is not tenable as the OPs Nigam has totally failed to prove that the complainant and the said Balvinder Singh were residing in the same premises and furthermore the complainant had ever used the electricity for which the consumption bill amounting to Rs. 66314/- in respect of Balvinder Singh his brother were outstanding. Mere on the ground that complainant and said Balvinder Singh were living in the same portion of the same premises it cannot be presumed that complainant might have used the electricity in respect of electricity connection bearing No. JU-11-1301 of Balvinder Singh. No cogent evidence has been filed by the OPs Nigam that the complainant and Balvinder Singh were living together and using the one electricity connection standing in the name of Balvinder Singh brother of the complainant. From the perusal of copy of ration card Annexure C-1, it is clearly evident that the complainant is living separately and using the electricity from his own electricity connection bearing No. JU-11-1072H.

11.                   Learned counsels for the OPs Nigam totally failed to convince this Forum that when a huge amount was standing in the name of said Balvinder Singh brother of the complainant, then why that electricity connection was not disconnected by the OPs Nigam on the defaulting of first or second electricity bill of said Balvinder Singh. Moreover, from the perusal of ledger of account bearing No. JU-11-1301 of Sh. Balvinder Singh placed on file during the course of arguments by the counsels for the OPs, it is duly evident that arrear amount of Rs. 66314/- of the said Balvinder Singh was relating to the period of October, 2012 to December 2014 which also seems to be incorrect as on the one hand the Ops Nigam has placed on file photo copy of PDCO bearing No.41/RS-3 dated 28.07.2011 Annexure R-2 vide which the electricity connection of Balvinder Singh was permanently disconnected on 28.07.2011 whereas the amount has been shown for the period from October, 2012 to December, 2014 which is totally illegal against the true and actual facts of the case. From the other angle also, when the account of the brother of the complainant Balvinder Singh bearing No. JU-11-1301 was disconnected permanently on 28.07.2011 and there was some defaulting amount then whey the Ops Nigam kept mum for a such long time i.e. 4 years as the alleged amount has been transferred in the account of the complainant in the month of February, 2015 and June, 2015 i.e. after a period of 4 years which is patently illegal as the Ops have no right to recover the said amount from the complainant who is paying his own electricity bill regularly without any fault. Further, the OPs Nigam has also failed to place on file any circular or guidelines vide which the OPs Nigam has right to recover the defaulting amount of another who was having his electricity connection separately from the complainant and in the absence of any such circular or guidelines, we are of the considered view that the OPs Nigam has no right to recover the defaulting amount of Rs. 66,314/- alongwith surcharge, if any, from the complainant. As such, the complainant is entitled for relief.

12.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs Nigam not to charge the amount of Rs. 16314/- demanded vide bill No. 739 dated 07.02.2015 and an amount of Rs. 50972 demanded vide bill No. 734 dated 09.06.2015 and the same are hereby quashed. Further, the OPs are also directed to overhaul the account of the complainant after deleting the aforesaid amount as well as surcharge thereon and adjust the amount whatsoever charged from the complainant in this account in future bills. However, OP Nigam is at liberty to recover the defaulting amount from the defaulting person as per rules (if so desired). Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. A copy of this order be also placed on file bearing CC no.224 of 2015 titled as Sushil Kumar versus SDE UHBVN etc.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court 10.01.2017.           

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.